Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 4 of 4
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Libertas





Joined: 16 Mar 2009
Posts: 358
Reputation: 14.6
votes: 6
Location: Medicine Hat, AB

PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 7:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's not that conservative policies are unpopular, it's that the leaders of conservative parties are unable to market them properly.

The problem most conservatives/libertarians have is that they often think in terms of elections and that's it. You have to spend your time trying to find converts and telling your fellow citizens about the benefits of individual liberty, the free market, and minimal government.

John Tory could have brought forward a different proposal, one advocating school vouchers and gotten much more support. The problem is that not a single party is advocating school vouchers or even charter schools for that matter. Despite the fact it could prove to be a winning issue with most parents.
fiscalconservative





Joined: 08 Dec 2008
Posts: 1043
Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9
votes: 6

PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 8:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

chrisreid wrote:


Oh I see, so conservative policies only won out of sure luck. So until that point, what? Propose liberal policies to try to win favour of the left-wing MSM?



Reagan was in an almost can't lose election. The Democrats tried to prevent Carter from seeking a second term. Churchill never won an election as until the 50's at some point. The one he fough on clear conservative views he lost. When Thatcher won their was great disinchantment with the opposition. Thatcher had the second lowest approval rating of any PM since WW2 - it was just that her opponents were even more unpopular.

People on here seem to cherry pick their comparisons. Comparing Reagan who came to power facing the most unpopular POTUS in history (until Bush) to a McCain who was following the new most unpopular POTUS in history.

The party elects conservative leaders when they have a really good shot at winning. They elect moderate ones to try an avoid defeat. (they chose based on who is electable rather than who they like the most).


chrisreid wrote:


Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher faced HUGE protests by left-wing activists, and a biased media. They didn't compromise. They won because they advocated conservative policies that spoke to the optimism of their countries.

They don't matter. You don't matter, I don't matter. Elections are decided by soccer mons who can name more of Paris Hiltons dogs than cabinet ministers. Try to tell them you want to ban abortion - see how your election goes.

chrisreid wrote:


I'd remind you that Reform was always gaining seats. The Reform Party scared the Liberals into balancing the budget, reducing the size of government and cutting taxes. The only reason Reform didn't grow faster was the splitting of the right of center vote.


Yeah, the Liberals looked scared. (cough) Martin was a strong believer in fighting the deficit long before Reform existed. The reason the Liberals were able to act on his dreams was because they had *0* need to buy anyones vote. It was not until after Sponsorship the Liberals began to spend their loot.


chrisreid wrote:


Where you the adviser to John Tory who suggested funding private schools ???
Fiscalconservative, um no. Funding private schools was not a CONSERVATIVE policy. .


It was when Harris proposed it. It was when Bush encouraged it.
fiscalconservative





Joined: 08 Dec 2008
Posts: 1043
Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9
votes: 6

PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 8:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Libertas wrote:

John Tory could have brought forward a different proposal, one advocating school vouchers and gotten much more support. The problem is that not a single party is advocating school vouchers or even charter schools for that matter. Despite the fact it could prove to be a winning issue with most parents.


I still think the same line would have worked "taking money out of the public schools". We have to remember this is frickin Ontario. Private schools are viewed as elitist, school vouchers as confusing.

I would agree with you that its a good policy, but you have to explain it to the MTV generation.
chrisreid





Joined: 29 Oct 2006
Posts: 182
Reputation: 64.1
votes: 5
Location: Melbourne, Australia

PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 8:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fiscalconservative
[quote="chrisreid wrote:


Where you the adviser to John Tory who suggested funding private schools ???
Fiscalconservative, um no. Funding private schools was not a CONSERVATIVE policy. .


It was when Harris proposed it. It was when Bush encouraged it.[/quote]

fiscalconservative, you seem to confuse what a conservative party proposes with that of what is a conservative policy based on principles.

Mike Harris never supported funding private schools, like John Tory did. John Tory basically advocated that government owned and run school boards oversee private schools. Mike Harris supported tax credits, because he saw the discrimination of parents being forced to pay taxes to fund a government run education they don't want any part of. John Tory's idea was to expand government.

As for abortion, polls continuously show most Canadians opposed to unrestricted abortion on demand, and do favour having restrictions in place.

Fiscalconservative, you can't speak for soccer moms, and neither can I. You can only speak for your own policy views, so stop using soccer moms as a cover to hide your fear of actually fighting liberal ideology with conservative principles.
Libertas





Joined: 16 Mar 2009
Posts: 358
Reputation: 14.6
votes: 6
Location: Medicine Hat, AB

PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 8:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I guess you do have a point, most people are idiots. Which is why I sometime yearn for a real monarchy.
fiscalconservative





Joined: 08 Dec 2008
Posts: 1043
Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9
votes: 6

PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 10:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

chrisreid wrote:


Mike Harris never supported funding private schools, like John Tory did. John Tory basically advocated that government owned and run school boards oversee private schools. Mike Harris supported tax credits, because he saw the discrimination of parents being forced to pay taxes to fund a government run education they don't want any part of. John Tory's idea was to expand government.


Okay, John Tory was going to cut a check, where Harris was going to route the money through a tax credit scheme. Same result.

chrisreid wrote:

As for abortion, polls continuously show most Canadians opposed to unrestricted abortion on demand, and do favour having restrictions in place.


Poll after poll has shown Canadians believe the choice is the woman's - not the governments. They have also shown Canadians don't want to reopen the debate.
I have not seen the polls you are speaking off.

chrisreid wrote:


Fiscalconservative, you can't speak for soccer moms, and neither can I. You can only speak for your own policy views, so stop using soccer moms as a cover to hide your fear of actually fighting liberal ideology with conservative principles.


I am afraid of another three Liberal majorities because people thought their stuff didn't stink. The CPC needs to be marketed like anything else. Nike picks Michael Jordan to market their shoes because polls show he would be much more popular than Gary Coleman.

If you could show me polls saying Canadians want to sell the CBC, believe Global Warming is some giant media conspiracy, support the type of restrictions social conservatives want to place on abortion, or believe in school vouchers, then - sure, go fight your election on those principles.

We are in a Democracy and you can't force people to vote for things they disagree with. You have to respond to the will of the people.

I don't agree with what is going on in Ottawa, but I trust the judgement of the guy who tooks us from Liberal majority to Conservative minority over those who gave us 3 Liberals majorities.
Libertas





Joined: 16 Mar 2009
Posts: 358
Reputation: 14.6
votes: 6
Location: Medicine Hat, AB

PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 11:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Poll after poll has shown Canadians believe the choice is the woman's - not the governments. They have also shown Canadians don't want to reopen the debate.
I have not seen the polls you are speaking off.


http://www.angus-reid.com/poll.....ain_legal/

Canadians are far more pro-life than the media lets on. Unfortunately we'll never have an actual debate in this country due to the fact the media shuts down any debate, not to mention the fact many on the pro-choice side argue that opposing abortion is akin to a hate crime.

Quote:
We are in a Democracy and you can't force people to vote for things they disagree with. You have to respond to the will of the people.


No offense, but that's bullshit. In a democracy you're not suppose to make policy based on what the recent public opinion poll shows, you're suppose to bring forward ideas and debate them and then let the populace decide whether they'd support them. If all of our politicians fundamentally agree we'd have nothing more than an echo chamber in our country.

Yes, I agree marketing ideas is important as well as having individuals who can articulate them. But you can't just ignore policies that would be beneficial to the country just because you're afraid that the Liberals might deploy a one liner against them.
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Wed Jun 24, 2009 12:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Libertas wrote:
...not to mention the fact many on the pro-choice side argue that opposing abortion is akin to a hate crime.

Many on the pro-life side are just as adamant.
fiscalconservative





Joined: 08 Dec 2008
Posts: 1043
Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9
votes: 6

PostPosted: Wed Jun 24, 2009 12:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Libertas wrote:


Quote:
We are in a Democracy and you can't force people to vote for things they disagree with. You have to respond to the will of the people.


No offense, but that's bullshit. In a democracy you're not suppose to make policy based on what the recent public opinion poll shows, you're suppose to bring forward ideas and debate them and then let the populace decide whether they'd support them. If all of our politicians fundamentally agree we'd have nothing more than an echo chamber in our country.


I have nothing wrong with bringing foward ideas. I have a problem on running with rejected ideas. The abortion debate is over. Almost nobody wants the types of restrictions on abortion people on this board are looking for. The numbers don't seem to be getting any better - we are on the wrong side of history.
I can understand how people are really passionate about that debate, but it is one that can't be won. If it won't fly in the states, it won't fly here.

This debate is getting rather redundent, being carried out in different threads, so I will sum it up like this. The question boils down to "do you want a pure conservative party in opposition or a flawed one in government" and "do you trust Stephen Harper's judgement. I trust Harper and prefer this government, flawed as it is, to the alternative.
fiscalconservative





Joined: 08 Dec 2008
Posts: 1043
Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9
votes: 6

PostPosted: Wed Jun 24, 2009 12:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Libertas wrote:


Quote:
We are in a Democracy and you can't force people to vote for things they disagree with. You have to respond to the will of the people.


No offense, but that's bullshit. In a democracy you're not suppose to make policy based on what the recent public opinion poll shows, you're suppose to bring forward ideas and debate them and then let the populace decide whether they'd support them. If all of our politicians fundamentally agree we'd have nothing more than an echo chamber in our country.


I have nothing wrong with bringing foward ideas. I have a problem on running with rejected ideas. The abortion debate is over. Almost nobody wants the types of restrictions on abortion people on this board are looking for. The numbers don't seem to be getting any better - we are on the wrong side of history.
I can understand how people are really passionate about that debate, but it is one that can't be won. If it won't fly in the states, it won't fly here.

This debate is getting rather redundent, being carried out in different threads, so I will sum it up like this. The question boils down to "do you want a pure conservative party in opposition or a flawed one in government" and "do you trust Stephen Harper's judgement. I trust Harper and prefer this government, flawed as it is, to the alternative.
Libertas





Joined: 16 Mar 2009
Posts: 358
Reputation: 14.6
votes: 6
Location: Medicine Hat, AB

PostPosted: Wed Jun 24, 2009 12:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I have nothing wrong with bringing foward ideas. I have a problem on running with rejected ideas. The abortion debate is over. Almost nobody wants the types of restrictions on abortion people on this board are looking for. The numbers don't seem to be getting any better - we are on the wrong side of history.


Except for approximately 43% of Canadians who have stated they want some restrictions on abortion. As for this idea that a debate is over, that is once again absurd. You can't just say the debate on a certain issue is over and just ignore it. That's certainly not a position that will yield any progress. What would have happened if all of those who challenged the common consensus just gave up with this false notion that the debate is over.

Most European nations have some restrictions on abortion, why can't we have a debate on whether or not we should also have similar restrictions. Now I'm not a member of the Christian right, in fact I'm an atheist. But from what I've read of the fetus, it seems to me that it is likely time in the womb is just another stage of human development. The only way we can know the truth is by having a debate out in the open.

As for being on the wrong side of history, look at what you're saying here. Can it not just as easily be said that any person opposing collectivism, fascism, and communism, was on the wrong side of history in the 1930's?

Don't be lulled into the false security of consensus. All progress is incumbent upon the minority of the population which will think and act contrary to popular opinion.

Quote:
I can understand how people are really passionate about that debate, but it is one that can't be won. If it won't fly in the states, it won't fly here.


It appears that it is flying in the United States since a larger share of Americans consider themselves pro-life than pro-choice.

I've always preferred people who can solidly say they're either 100% for abortion rights or 100% against abortion rights as compared to those who prefer cowardice. But to say that you don't want to discuss an issue because it's controversial is ridiculous. I'll admit that I wouldn't have a problem with voting for a pro-choice candidate, but I'd want them to be fully open about it.

Quote:
This debate is getting rather redundent, being carried out in different threads, so I will sum it up like this. The question boils down to "do you want a pure conservative party in opposition or a flawed one in government" and "do you trust Stephen Harper's judgement. I trust Harper and prefer this government, flawed as it is, to the alternative.


I'm not taking issue with that, I'm taking issue with this notion that individuals shouldn't challenge the consensus opinion on an issue simply because they hold a position that is in conflict with +50% of the population.

Quote:
Many on the pro-life side are just as adamant.


Except that it's well known in Canada that the pro-choice side has actually done more to shut down freedom of speech with regards to that debate. Can you point out any evidence that the pro-life side has been able to do that, probably not.
chrisreid





Joined: 29 Oct 2006
Posts: 182
Reputation: 64.1
votes: 5
Location: Melbourne, Australia

PostPosted: Wed Jun 24, 2009 2:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

fiscalconservative wrote:
Libertas wrote:


Quote:
We are in a Democracy and you can't force people to vote for things they disagree with. You have to respond to the will of the people.


No offense, but that's bullshit. In a democracy you're not suppose to make policy based on what the recent public opinion poll shows, you're suppose to bring forward ideas and debate them and then let the populace decide whether they'd support them. If all of our politicians fundamentally agree we'd have nothing more than an echo chamber in our country.


I have nothing wrong with bringing foward ideas. I have a problem on running with rejected ideas. The abortion debate is over. Almost nobody wants the types of restrictions on abortion people on this board are looking for. The numbers don't seem to be getting any better - we are on the wrong side of history.
I can understand how people are really passionate about that debate, but it is one that can't be won. If it won't fly in the states, it won't fly here.

This debate is getting rather redundent, being carried out in different threads, so I will sum it up like this. The question boils down to "do you want a pure conservative party in opposition or a flawed one in government" and "do you trust Stephen Harper's judgement. I trust Harper and prefer this government, flawed as it is, to the alternative.


I don't agree with your concluding questions. That is not democracy that is a false choice. Democracy is about individuals bringing forward ideas and fighting for them. Who are you to determine was i "rejected". As Libertas stated if you solely base your own opinion on what 51% of the population thinks, the present would be a completely place today if that idea was followed. We'd most likely still have slavery, women barred from voting, and heck probably never even have a democracy. It wasn't 51% of people in Upper and Lower Canada that fought in rebellions to get responsible government for the colonies (ie the beginnings of Canadian democracy) it was a minority of liberty minded individuals.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 4 of 4

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum


Poll: Scrapping Human Rights Tribunal = Faith Based Funding

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB